Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Maddox v. State
Citations: 217 Ark. 849; 233 S.W.2d 542; 1950 Ark. LEXIS 514Docket: 4640
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 6, 1950; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
On November 19, 1949, Carl Maddox shot and killed Collins Sheppard, who was 26 years old. Maddox was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Witnesses testified that Collins and his companions arrived at Maddox’s café around 2 a.m. after visiting a nearby location. When Collins attempted to enter the café, he found the door locked. After knocking, Maddox initially stated the place was closed but later opened the door. Witnesses suggested Collins believed Maddox had changed his mind and approached him. Maddox then shot Collins from a distance of four to eight feet, withdrew, and warned others not to approach. The state’s witnesses asserted that Collins was unarmed and did not behave aggressively, while Maddox contended that he acted in self-defense, claiming Collins had attempted to force his way in after being told the café was closed. Maddox alleged that the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle over the weapon. The defense argued that the group may have been intoxicated, and Maddox sought a jury instruction on self-defense, which was a contested point during the trial. The defendant claimed the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle, asserting his case hinged on this statement. The appellant argues that the trial court erroneously refused certain self-defense instructions (Nos. 9, 10, and 11). However, Instruction 'A' correctly informed the jury that if the deceased attempted to forcibly enter the defendant's restaurant in a violent manner, the defendant was justified in using a show of force. Should the jury find that the deceased's actions prompted the defendant to present a pistol, leading to an accidental discharge during a scuffle, the defendant should be acquitted, aligning with his defense theory. Additionally, the court dismissed an objection regarding the prosecuting attorney's cross-examination of Maddox about a previous incident where he killed another man with a baseball bat, ruling that the question was permissible to assess the defendant’s credibility. The jury was instructed to disregard the answer for any other purpose. Maddox acknowledged the prior killing. Other objections raised by the defendant were also deemed non-prejudicial, resulting in the affirmation of the judgment. Testimonies from state witnesses varied regarding the distance between the two men during the incident.